> > My problem still lies with the community not accepting prefixes longer than > > a /24 for global routability. We can't prevent IXPs with prefixes longer > > than a /24 from routing their prefixes, when those with shorter than or > > equal to a /24 can. It's either all can, or none can. > My problem is with the whole idea that RIRs should be issuing IPv4 prefixes > longer than /24 in a misguided effort to extend the “useful” life of IPv4.
I don't believe it's misguided at all. There is no technical or policy-based reason as to why longer prefixes cannot be delegated or routed. Back in the AUNIC and early APNIC days, much shorter delegations were being made, when exhaustion wasn't thought about (or at least considered), and this was the norm. Why can /25 prefixes not be considered the new norm for resource delegations? > > > RIRs should not be in the business of dictating routing policy to anyone. > > APNIC does not "dictate" how we can and cannot route resources, the > > community defines policy (see the PDP). APNIC simply facilitates this > > process. > Permit me to rephrase… > Routing Policy should be out of scope for RIR policies. Again, members define policy (be it a routing policy or otherwise). If a community member presents a policy about the routability of prefixes longer than a /24 at an open policy meeting and it reaches consensus with the wider community, why should we not accept it? RIRs do so much more than just administering addresses and if that's all they did, I believe the internet would not be the way that it is today. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
